Explosives Debate

Mr. Y:
That is encouraging that you watched the video.
The 60 mph is clocked by the videos by physicicst David Chandler.
Anyone with the simple video analysis software can do the calculations with high school physics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSApOavkHg8 North Tower Exploding (clocking at 70 mph. I’m conservative at 60 mph)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnR4A4zb8B0 South Tower Exploding Projecile
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiHeCjZlkr8 What a Gravity-Driven Demolition Looks Like
The main issue is that explosives of some kind were used.
So let’s forget thermite until Mark Basile’s project is done.
We are almost to $5000 raised for the experiments, some of which are in progress.

A major item of evidence for explosives is that a van carrying explosives was arrested fleeing the WTCs, by the police and FBI.

http://americanfreepress.net/?p=974
In the first ever interview of its kind, AMERICAN FREE PRESS speaks with the police officer responsible for arresting the “Dancing Israelis” on September 11, 2001, who were caught filming and celebrating while the WTC burned and people died. Sgt. Scott DeCarlo reveals the details of that day, details the Zionist-controlled mainstream media conveniently overlooked. DeCarlo has promised that this is his first and last interview on the subject, in the hopes of quelling ongoing interest in his role that horrible day.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-B2J7tp8eg

———————————————
Mr. X:
> I was saying explosives which have even more force than canons.

 
…disperse the energy in all directions, which means it is useless to move steel, and you did use canon as your example which has no relevance whatsoever to a controlled demolition.
 
>But 6 ton beams going 60 mph for 600 feet does not make sense with the laws of physics.
 
Who said the beams went 60 mph? You can see for yourself the 600 feet off a 500 foot building, but using child’s blocks. I’ve done it with various blocks several times. If you use tin cans, my wife’s chocolate tins and push down on concrete you get even more distance. And here we’re talking millions of tons of energy.
 
And you miss the point entirely. The NY Times or a Senate committee hearing will not be interested in statements about the behavior you pull out of your butt, right? Or do you think you will walk into the Village Voice and say “To bring the WTC towers down there would need to be enough explosives to separate at the weakest points” when anybody with google can read that the joints are cut half-way through prior to putting explosives in place and weakest points has nothing to do with it—those are created.
 
Or do you think the people at the Voice will accept what you say, no evidence required?
 
So here is the thing: are you arguing to convince anybody at the NY Times, at the Senate, at Universities to obtain support? Are you arguing to hear yourself talk or are you actually trying to convince somebody?
 
Because if you are tying to convince me, you will need to do better than pull statement out of your butt.
 
In short, you will need a CIVIL ENGINEER because to make civil engineering statements with none of the 80,000 graduate degreed civil engineers providing support is pretty ridiculous.
 
Or am I missing something.
 
I wonder if all Senate arguments could be heard that way. Senate needs to decide whether to spend millions of dollars so they have some guy with no engineering experience come in an just make statements—-and they say, sure, here is $10 million. Are you expecting that?
 
The whole thing is a joke, and it us beyond me that you think people at the NY Times and Village Voice or US Senate will accept statements just because you make them.
 
Mr. X
———————————————————–
You know full well I was not saying a canon was on each floor. I was saying explosives which have even more force than canons.
By “sail” I mean that the panels had a flat surface area, upon which the explosive force could act.
To bring the WTC towers down there would need to be enough explosives to separate at the weakest points,
the connecting bolts, and move the beam out of the way. Evidently the perpetrators used too much explosives.
I would still support the Official Theory, and have a lot more time for my business, if the steel landed about 50 feet from each tower.
That would make sense. But 6 ton beams going 60 mph for 600 feet does not make sense with the laws of physics.
>The same way my kids six foot high wall of blocks falls 12 feet away when knocked over and bouncing forward.
Sorry that is hard to believe. Show me a video of something with any substantial weight going twice as far sideways as downwards.
It would take a substantial sideways force, even with wooden blocks. Heavy steel would not bounce very far, if at all.
>And exactly how would you move steel beams anywhere
This shows exactly how.
Here is an experiment done with real steel (not computer animation) exploding with thermite.
by Jonathan Cole P.E. (Professional Engineer).
If you watch nothing else, watch at the 11:00 minute point.
“Can thermite cut bolts?”
“I guess it can.”
—– Original Message —–
From: Mr. X
To: Mr. Y
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 5:26 PM
Subject: Re: Oops Pirate Canons of 1720. MIT Review. 6 tons 60 mph 600 feet AmEx
A canon (or a jet engine) isn’t just explosives. Are you suggesting that somebody went floor by floor in WTC 7 and affixed canons to each steel beam? I mean, jesus god.

And exactly how would you move steel beams anywhere using a canon?

>

In WTC 1 there was evidently so much explosives that the steel beams and panels
could not go anywhere but outwards. The large surface area of the panels would
act as a “sail” and carry 6 ton sections 600 feet at 60 mph to reach the AmEx.
This argument is (1) you making something up with no evidence; (2) self-evidently ridiculous. A “sail to carry six ton attached sections 600 feet?” You did just make me laugh.
I provided you with a number of reasonably intelligent counter-arguments to your steel claim. Arguments that you can bet you will be asked by an Senate investigating committee or the Village Voice or NY Times if they approach you in for a pre-article interview.I would suggest thatthese publications and the United States Senate would not consider you providing a non-mathematical, off-the-top-of-your head, non-expert opinion to count for much. Just a reasonable guess, especially since there are a half dozen ASCE journal articles written by civil engineers with mathematics that suggest the buildings fell from gravity.Does this make any sense to you? Does the NY Times or the US Senate have the right to request to request you provide an independent expert before giving you millions for an investigation—-or does your response to me indicate that you think people will say, “well, okay, sure. After all, Rick said it. Must be true. What I’m looking for is a technical, professional independent expert response not for you to just make statements.
What are you going to tell the NY Times? That is the argument I want to see. And this is just one argument. I sent you eight.

>
Otherwise, how did these huge heavy steel sections get there?
Gravity. The same way my kids six foot high wall of blocks falls 12 feet away when knocked over and bouncing forward. Further, my kids blocks had the tiny force of my hand as I gently pushed. The steel had a million tons of force behind it from a collapsing building.
 
Mr. X

On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 4:54 PM,  Mr. Y wrote:

>Explosives can’t move steel. Period.
We can blow that argument away with a canon.
A canon uses explosives to propel steel balls at high speed for great distances.
Watch Pirates of the Caribbean – and think.
Think of the inefficient canons they had even in the 1700’s that could propel steel for a mile.
Then think of today’s high tech, nanothermite explosives featured in the MIT Review.

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/403624/military-reloads-with-nanotech/

In WTC 1 there was evidently so much explosives that the steel beams and panels
could not go anywhere but outwards. The large surface area of the panels would
act as a “sail” and carry 6 ton sections 600 feet at 60 mph to reach the AmEx.
Otherwise, how did these huge heavy steel sections get there?
The steel sections not only reached the AmEx building, they did not bounce off.
They STILL had enough force to stick like darts into heavy concrete walls.
We must have an explanation.
—– Original Message —–
From:  Mr. X
To: Mr. Y
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 3:10 PM
Subject: Oops
Opps. One more. Explosives can’t move steel. Period. If you place steel on the ground and attach explosives, the steel won’t move since the force from the explosion goes outward in all directions. To get steel to move in one direction, to lie down uniformly on just one side and not fly everywhere, can’t be done.
Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s